Friday, February 27, 2015

The Senate Education Committee on Thursday passed a bill that would
limit the authority of school-based decision making councils,
considerably changing the way individual schools are governed.

School
councils would have less power and take on more of an advisory role,
and superintendents would have more authority, under Senate Bill 135.

School
councils currently set policy and, along with superintendents, help
select principals and teachers, and determine which textbooks should be
used, among other roles.

Sen. John Schickel, (R, Boone)

Membership of each council includes parents, teachers and a school administrator such as a principal.

Generally, under Sen. John Schickel's bill, the superintendent would make decisions after consulting with the school council.

The bill passed 7-4 and now goes to the full Senate.

When
the Kentucky legislature passed the Kentucky Education Reform Act in
1990, one major change was in governance, as school-based decision
making councils were introduced.

Schickel, R-Union, said
superintendents are held accountable for what happens in a school
district but "we do not give them the tools they need to manage the
school system effectively."

Two senators from Lexington —
Republican Alice Forgy Kerr and Democrat Reginald Thomas — were among
four on the committee who voted against the bill.

Officials with the Kentucky Association of School Councils spoke against the bill.

Heather
Aldrich, president of the association's executive board, said Kentucky
had made great gains with school councils. She fears the bill would
eliminate teacher and parent voices in raising student achievement.

Aldrich is concerned about elements of the bill that would lessen a council's role on issues such as selecting teachers.

"This
bill as written will probably not pass entirely through the system,"
said State Sen. Jimmy Higdon, R-Lebanon, who voted for the legislation.

But Higdon said "it starts a conversation."

Higdon said while some school-based decision-making councils are outstanding, "we have some that are not working so well."

Brad
Hughes, spokesman for the Kentucky School Boards Association, said that
organization is going to remain neutral on the bill.

Hughes said school board members are divided, both passionately supporting and opposing the proposed changes.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

As Republican majorities in both houses consider lowering tax rates, a new economic snapshot from EPI examines the correlation between the average top marginal tax rate and productivity growth (how much output is produced in the average hour of work). EPI compared net productivity between 1948-1979 with the period from 1979-2007 and found that, in the most recent period, top tax rates are not associated with faster economic growth. The rich are getting richer, but it is not trickling down to any significant degree. The earlier period saw significantly higher average top tax rate and significantly faster productivity growth.

The coming year is likely to see repeated calls from the Republican
majorities in both houses of Congress for “tax reform” that leads to
lower top tax rates, for both individuals and corporations. The claim
made on behalf of these policy proposals is that lower top tax rates
will lead to accelerated economic growth. One key problem with such
claims is that over the past generation a huge and growing wedge has
appeared between economy-wide growth rates and the growth rates of the
living standards of low- and middle-income households. This wedge means
that even successful efforts to boost economy-wide growth rates do
disappointingly little to boost incomes for the vast majority of
Americans.

And an even bigger problem with such claims is that lower top tax
rates just are not associated with more rapid economic growth. The
figure below shows average top tax rates and average productivity growth
(how much output is produced in the average hour of work in the
economy) for two periods: 1948-1979 and 1979-2007. The earlier period
saw significantly higher average top tax rates and significantly faster
productivity growth. Obviously many variables will affect productivity
growth besides top tax rates, but this data makes clear that magical
growth bonanzas cannot be had simply by slashing top tax rates.
Policymakers who are really serious about spurring growth—both overall
and for the vast majority of Americans—should look for solutions besides
lowering the rates paid by the highest-income households.

Tax Cuts Didn’t Lead to Faster Growth

Average top marginal tax rate and annualized productivity growth, 1948–1979 and 1979–2007

Note: Net
productivity is used as the basis for the calculation of productivity
growth. "Net productivity" is the growth of output of goods and services
less depreciation per hour worked.

A former top administrator at the University of Louisville has filed
suit against the school’s board of trustees, alleging he was fired
because he spoke out about health insurance bidding issues and racial
discrimination of employees.

Sam Connally

According to a complaint filed Tuesday in Jefferson County Circuit
Court, Sam Connally, former vice president for human resources, claims
the university violated Kentucky’s whistleblower statute and the state’s
civil rights act.

An attorney hired by the university, however, determined in December that Connally’s claims were without merit.

Connally alleges that Provost Shirley Willihnganz retaliated against
him because he complained that Humana Inc. received an unfair advantage
in the bidding process for university health insurance. Connally alleges
the school was planning to solicit David Jones, Sr., Humana’s founder,
for a $10 million gift to U of L’s capital campaign.

“At the end of the day, it’s kind of hard to argue with $10 million,” the suit quotes Willihnganz as saying.

In 2012, the lawsuit states, U of L sought proposals for a healthcare
provider for the following year. A preliminary assessment showed that
the bid should be awarded to United Healthcare because of an estimated
savings of $1.2 million over the bid submitted by Humana, the suit
states.

A few days later, however, Connally alleges that Willihnganz
disclosed to him that Michael McAllister, chairman and CEO of Humana,
had written to President James Ramsey during the open bid process to
complain about how the university’s benefit consultant evaluated the
bids.

Connally alleges that Willihnganz made it clear that the
administration wanted to extend “every possible courtesy to Humana in
the selection of a health plan vendor since the university was planning
to solicit David Jones, Sr. … for a $10 million gift.”

University spokesman Mark Hebert declined in an e-mail to comment.
Connally’s attorney, Andrew Dutkanych III, did not immediately respond
to a request for comment.

The complaint states that U of L increased employee health insurance
premiums by $25 per employee per month (or $300 per employee per year),
totaling $1.65 million per year for the 5,500 health plan participants.
This took effect in Jan. 1, 2013. By June of that year, the plan had
generated a surplus of $1.65 million.

Rather than return the excess premiums to employees or reduce
premiums, U of L moved the money out of the health plan and spent it on
non-health plan expenditures, Connally alleges in the suit.
As of June 2014, the health plan generated a surplus of $3.4 million,
which according to Connally’s lawsuit,was also spent on non-health
expenditures.

In October 2014, the plan was projected to generate an annual surplus
of $1.75 million. Of that, $250,000 was allocated to offset minor
enhancements to retiree health insurance, leaving a surplus of $1.5
million, according to the suit.

Connally alleges that Willihnganz wanted to consider another premium
hike in 2015 “because university general fund budgets were exceedingly
tight,” according to the lawsuit. Connally claims he argued that the
school couldn’t raise rates without documenting the need based on actual
increases in health plan costs.

Connally also asserts he was punished for speaking up in a separate
matter. He alleges that the school made false statements to the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, denying that black employees in
the financial aid office had been discriminated against. Connally
himself described their treatment as the “most extreme example of race
discrimination” he had observed in more than 20 years as a university
EEO officer.

Connally’s claims were previously deemed unfounded
by an attorney hired by the school to investigate a formal retaliation
complaint filed in October. The attorney, Thomas Williams, said
Connally’s complaints “had no credible basis.”

The attorney noted that Connally waited more than two years to file a
complaint about the health insurance plan bidding process. The
investigation revealed that multiple people were involved in selecting a
health care provider and that “Humana did not even receive the bid at
issue.”

The investigation also found that Willihnganz had limited involvement
with the discrimination claims from employees. “But even if she had
been involved,” the report states, “the claims were resolved with
negotiated agreements with the EEOC. There were no remaining issues
open.”

Williams concluded: “It is apparent from the record that Connally
makes his allegations against the provost when he knows his job is in
jeopardy.”

Connally was hired by U of L in 2010 and had an annual salary of
$192,890. The executive committee of U of L’s Board of Trustees ratified
President Ramsey’s decision to fire him on Dec. 18.

Connally declined Wednesday afternoon to comment on the suit, in
which he is seeking reinstatement to the university, as well as back pay
and other damages.

The federal government's formula for measuring college graduation rates leaves out huge numbers of students who have earned degrees - but not from the institution where they initially enrolled. The National Student Clearinghouse [reported this week] that 13 percent of students who started at four-year colleges in the fall of 2008 transferred and ended up getting a degree from another institution within six years. Yet they're still counted as non-completers. The problem is biggest in Minnesota, where 25 percent of graduates aren't counted as completers; Missouri is right behind, at 24 percent. The NSC breaks the data down by state and institution type.

Completing College: A State-Level View of Student Attainment Rates

In the state supplement to our eighth Signature Report, a national study
on college completion, we take a state-by-state look at the various
pathways that students take to complete a college degree or certificate.

Among the study’s findings:

Nationally, 13 percent of students who started at four-year public
institutions completed at an institution other than the starting
institution. In 24 states, students who started at four-year public
institutions had a higher completion rate elsewhere, with Minnesota
having the highest rate at 25 percent followed by Missouri with 24
percent.

Traditional graduation measures do not include student completions
that happen at institutions other than the starting institution. This
means that completions elsewhere are counted as non-persistence. Our
state-specific results show that, in nearly every state, not tracking
completions elsewhere would lead to at least a 20 percent increase in
the non-persistence rate for students who started at four-year public
institutions.

Nationally, one in three students who started at two-year public
institutions completed at an institution other than the one where they
first enrolled. In seven states, more than 40 percent of all completions
for two-year public starters happened elsewhere.

In five states (Iowa, North Dakota, Virginia, Kansas, Texas), more
than 20 percent of the students who started at two-year public
institutions completed at a four-year institution (with or without first
receiving a credential at a two-year institution) within six years.
Kansas had the highest rate at 25 percent followed by Virginia at 23
percent (compared to 16 percent nationally).

In 11 states, at least one in five women who started at two-year
public institutions completed at a four-year institution. Only in two
states did at least 20 percent of men who started at a two-year public
institution complete at a four-year institution.

In 16 states, for students who started at four-year private
nonprofit institutions, the completion rate was over 74 percent, the
overall U.S. completion rate for students who started in this sector. In
all but one of those 16 states, one in 10 completions happened at an
institution other than the starting institution. In two of states
(Minnesota and New York), one in five students who started at four-year
private non-profit institutions and completed a degree did so at an
institution other than the one where they first enrolled.

Tracking students who started college in one state and completed in
another substantially added to the overall completion rate for students
who started at four-year public and four-year private non-profit
institutions. In 22 states, more than five percent of the starting
cohort in four-year public institutions completed in a state different
than the starting institution’s state. This was true for students who
started at four-year private non-profit institutions in 33 states.

In most states, traditional-age students starting at four-year
public institutions had higher completion rates than the delayed entry
(age 21-24) and adult learner (over age 24) groups. In six states
(Arizona, California, Iowa, Michigan, New Mexico, and North Carolina),
delayed entry students had a higher completion rate than traditional-age
students.

In only five states, at least one in three exclusively part-time
students at four-year public institutions received a credential
(compared to 21 percent nationally). In 21 states, more than 70 percent
of students in this category had not received a credential and were not
enrolled at the end of six years (compared to 68 percent nationally).

WITH
the early stages of the 2016 presidential campaign underway and
millions of Americans still hurting financially, both parties are
looking for ways to address wage stagnation. That’s the good news. The
bad news is that both parties are offering tax cuts as a solution. What
has hurt workers’ paychecks is not what the government takes out, but
what their employers no longer put in — a dynamic that tax cuts cannot
eliminate.

Wage
stagnation is a decades-long phenomenon. Between 1979 and 2014, while
the gross domestic product grew 150 percent and productivity grew 75
percent, the inflation-adjusted hourly wage of the median worker rose
just 5.6 percent — less than 0.2 percent a year. And since 2002, the
bottom 80 percent of wage earners, including both male and female
college graduates, have actually seen their wages stagnate or fall.

At
the same time, taxation does not explain why middle-income families are
having a harder time making ends meet, even as they increase their
education and become ever more productive. According to the latest
Congressional Budget Office data, the middle 60 percent of families paid
just 3.2 percent of their income in federal income taxes in 2011, less
than half what they paid in 1979.

Yes,
a one-time reduction in taxes through, say, expanded child care credits
or a secondary earner tax break, as Democrats propose, could help
families. But as wages continue to stagnate, it is impossible to
continuously cut taxes and still pay for things like education and
social programs for the growing population of older Americans.

Republican tax proposals, like the reforms
put forward by Representative Paul D. Ryan of Wisconsin, focus on
lowering individual and corporate tax rates alongside revenue-saving
efforts to simplify the tax code. But this same approach has been tried
for decades — the same decades in which wages have continued to
stagnate. Instead, these cuts have helped corporations, shareholders and
the top 1 percent capture a larger share of economic growth.

Similarly,
President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, which likewise
promised to increase middle-class income, were followed by slower
productivity and wage stagnation. The latest proposed Republican cuts
won’t even provide much short-term relief, as they tend to be targeted
at the highest-income households. For example, under a much-touted proposal
by Representative Dave Camp of Michigan, the middle fifth would gain
just $279 in tax relief a year, according to the Tax Policy Center,
while the top 0.1 percent would garner the largest rate cut, valued at
$248,000.

Obtaining
better economic growth, another goal of these cuts, is certainly
worthwhile, but it establishes only the potential for broad-based wage
growth — it’s no guarantee. Again, we have seen plenty of growth since
1979, but this expansion has not “trickled down” to middle-wage workers.

The
challenge is to ensure that a typical worker’s wages grow along with
profits and productivity. There is no silver bullet, but the key is to
make raising wages the central focus of economic policy making and to
reverse decades of decisions that have undercut wage growth.

We
need to start with monetary policy. In the next few years, the most
important decisions being made about wages are those of the Federal
Reserve Board as it determines the scale and pace at which it raises
interest rates — and thereby slows job growth. Before raising rates, it
is essential we achieve a robust recovery, with roughly 3.5 to 4 percent
annual wage growth. This will ensure that wage growth matches
productivity growth and that everyone can benefit from the rebounding
economy.

Another
short- to medium-term policy decision affecting wage growth is to avoid
trade deals, such as the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership, that would
further erode Americans’ wages and send jobs overseas.

And
there are several things we can do to bolster the labor standards and
institutions that support wage growth. Raising the minimum wage to
$12.50 an hour by 2020 would ensure that the minimum wage equals more
than half the average wage, as it did in the late 1960s. And it has been
too long since we have raised the salary threshold for overtime pay;
raising it to $50,000, so that anyone making below that would get
overtime, would move us closer to what prevailed in the 1970s, when
about two-thirds of salaried workers received overtime pay.

Protecting
and expanding workers’ right to unionize and bargain collectively is
also essential; the erosion of collective bargaining is the single
largest factor suppressing wage growth for middle-wage workers over the
last few decades. And we need to modernize our New Deal-era labor
standards to include earned sick leave and paid family leave so workers
can balance work and family.

Finally,
stronger laws and enforcement to deter and remedy wage theft and the
illegal treatment of employees as independent contractors could put tens
of billions of dollars into workers’ pockets.

Contrary
to conventional wisdom, wage stagnation is not a result of forces
beyond our control. It is a result of a policy regime that has undercut
the individual and collective bargaining power of most workers. Because
wage stagnation was caused by policy, it can be reversed by policy, too.

Lawrence Mishel is the president of the Economic Policy Institute and co-chairman of Americans for Tax Fairness.

The GOP is debating whether Reaganomics needs an update

Leading Republicans are clashing over a signature issue the party has
treated as gospel for nearly 40 years: the idea that sharply lower
taxes and smaller government are enough by themselves to drive a more
prosperous middle class — and win national elections.

That simple
philosophy has been the foundation of every GOP platform since the days
of Ronald Reagan. Now, some of the party’s presidential hopefuls —
along with some top conservative economists and strategists — are
sending strong signals that they believe today’s beleaguered workers
need more targeted help, even if growth speeds up. They are embracing
plans to give direct relief to low- and middle-income workers; a few of
those plans mirror ideas that President Obama has proposed.

Rifts are beginning to form in the party’s prospective 2016 field over the dispute.

On
one end, Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida has built an economic agenda
around tailored tax breaks for workers and families with children. On
the other, Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has reassured prominent
conservatives in recent days that he supports a strictly Reaganesque
economic approach, including lowering income tax rates and reducing the
number of tax brackets.

In the middle, for now at least, sits
former Florida governor Jeb Bush. This week, his presidential campaign
hired April Ponnuru, a major advocate for Republicans overhauling their
economic agenda to target wage stagnation and other contemporary
economic anxieties, as an adviser. That followed Bush’s maiden economic
speech, in which he repeatedly discussed economic opportunity.

Republican
Sens. Ted Cruz (Tex.), Rand Paul (Ky.) and Marco Rubio (Fla.) discussed
what they see to be the current U.S. economy’s weak spots at a forum
Sunday night. All are thought to be potential 2016 presidential
hopefuls. (Reuters)

Bush has also been
consulting with a leading conservative economist who wants a “radical
expansion” of a tax break that benefits single workers — a group that
has been struggling in the recovery.

Still, Bush has not
endorsed major new policies that challenge GOP orthodoxy and is likely
to try to hold on to the mantle of Reagan even while advancing new ideas
so as not to turn off the party’s faithful.

The debate is
ramping up as Republicans come to grips with the fact that their
economic plans have not in recent years delivered the results they’d
like at the presidential level.

Republicans are wrestling with
the question of whether their tax-cutting message has lost potency — and
what new ideas are there to deal with the twin problems of relatively
slow growth and long-stagnant wages.

GOP hopefuls will speak
this weekend in Palm Beach, Fla., to the Club for Growth, a group that
has threatened primary challenges to Republicans who do not embrace a
hard-line view on taxes and spending.

It is too early to tell
what specific economic proposals most candidates will put forth. What is
shaping up is a struggle for candidates’ attention among factions of
economic thinkers within the party.

Reagan
stalwarts Arthur Laffer and Steve Forbes recently formed a group called
the Committee to Unleash American Prosperity to push candidates to
advocate traditional Reaganesque economic policies.

“Our
concern is that vision — what we’d call the Reagan vision — is not
shared by everybody” in the GOP, said Larry Kudlow, an influential
conservative economic strategist and former Reagan administration
official who is also leading the group. “One reason that the GOP has
been losing is that Reagan’s message has not been used.”

Republicans
roundly agree that their party needs an updated economic message to
improve their chances at retaking the White House. They are looking for
new ways to critique Democrats on the economy now that the recovery from
recession is accelerating.

Doug Holtz-Eakin, a former top
adviser to 2008 nominee John McCain, said crafting policies to benefit
the middle class is essential for the party’s chances in 2016. “If we’re
going to play on the same turf we’ve always played on, we’re going to
have a beautiful set of policies for aging white guys in the South,” he
said. “That’s not going to work.”

The intraparty debate centers
around the question of whether Republican policies, and not just
rhetoric, must evolve along with economic circumstances.

Middle-class
incomes are no higher today than they were 25 years ago, after
adjusting for inflation. There is a growing sense among many
conservative economists that faster growth by itself will not suffice to
lift those incomes at the rate middle-class workers came to expect a
generation ago.

“There’s a recognition that folks in the middle
and bottom of the income distribution are in need of [new] policy
solutions,” said Michael Strain, an economist at the right-leaning
American Enterprise Institute who has pushed hard for conservatives to
consider more targeted measures for those workers. “And I expect there
to be an effort on the right to address that with policy. I think that’s
starting now.”

The
most recent GOP president, George W. Bush, signed two tax packages that
cut rates from the top bracket on down — and then watched the economy
deliver the slowest job growth of any presidency in the modern era.

The
2012 nominee, Mitt Romney, proposed a rate-reduction plan that he
promised would rev up the sluggish recovery from the Great Recession,
but he lost the election.

It’s too soon to tell where many of the would-be candidates will fall in the debate.

Kudlow
and Laffer’s group recently met with Walker, whom Kudlow said delivered
a “Reaganesque” message. He said the group will meet with “everybody”
in the field.

Some contenders still appear to be finding their
way to economic plans. Former Texas governor Rick Perry has met with
Laffer and Kudlow’s group. He has also hosted marathon briefing sessions
with economists who favored a new approach to the economy. New Jersey
Gov. Chris Christie has given little indication of which camp he might
join, several conservative economists said.

Bush walked a careful
line in his first major economic speech of the cycle earlier this
month, adopting the language of middle-class assistance but proposing
few specific policies beyond the promise of growing the economy at
4 percent per year. He pledged to offer more detailed plans in the weeks
to come.

Bush’s economic advisory team is still shaping up. But
if he follows the lead of one of the top economists he has been talking
with, he could be on the path to more targeted tax cuts.

“Traditional
economic policy from conservative politicians and conservative
economists has been about economic growth,” Glenn Hubbard, a former top
adviser to Romney in 2012, said in an interview. “But that belies the
question of who gets the benefit of that, and are we empowering
opportunity?”

Hubbard, who many conservative economists expect
will head up economic policy for Bush this cycle, has consulted with
Bush and other prospective candidates but would not say if he had signed
on to a campaign. He said he favors a “radical expansion” of the
earned-income tax credit for single workers.

“It wouldn’t do, I think,” Hubbard said, “for a platform just to be about growth, and not about work and opportunity, too.”

Tuesday, February 24, 2015

Early Tuesday morning, Secretary of State Alison Lundergan
Grimes testified before state lawmakers in favor of a study to check the
health of civics education around Kentucky.

If she'd stayed at
the House Education Committee meeting a little longer, she would have
seen a pretty healthy example: A group of students persuaded the
committee to support a change in the law so a student could sit on
superintendent screening committees.

"We are the chief
stakeholders in Kentucky education," said Sahil Nair, a member of the
Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence's Student Voice Team and a
student at Paul Laurence Dunbar High School in Lexington. "Shouldn't we
at least be considered as partners at the decision-making table?"

In
supporting House Bill 236, Eliza Jane Schaeffer of Henry Clay High
School in Lexington said that students spend seven hours a day in
school, and "informed young people can contribute to discussions of
school governance."

Enthusiastic committee members agreed, sending HB 236 on to the full House in a unanimous vote.

Under
the bill, sponsored by Democratic Rep. Derrick Graham of Frankfort, a
school board would have the option to add a student to a superintendent
screening committee.

Fayette County school officials tried to add
a student to its screening committee in December after Superintendent
Tom Shelton resigned, but they discovered that state law requires each
committee to have two teachers, elected by teachers; one classified
employee, elected by classified employees; one principal, elected by
principals; one parent or guardian, elected by PTA presidents, and one
school board member, appointed by the chairman.

Supporters expect the bill to get an equally bipartisan welcome on the House floor in coming days.

This afternoon President Michael Benson announced four finalists for the position of Athletics Director at EKU. Two of the finalists have ties to UK (and one is a former Cassidy Dad).

This from President Benson (via email):

Dear
Campus Community:

The
national search to identify the individual who can take our athletics program
to even greater heights of excellence has been narrowed to four outstanding
finalists.

They
are: Jude A. Killy, Senior Associate Athletics Director for External
Operations at Miami University (Ohio); Stephen Lochmueller, Owner and President
of Direct Attention Inc.; Derrick Ramsey, Director of Athletics at Coppin State
University; and Christopher Walker, Associate Athletics Director for
Development at Washington State University.

Each finalist will spend two
days on our campus for a series of meetings and forums. An open forum with each
candidate will give members of the campus community and public the opportunity
to meet the finalists and hear their ideas for moving EKU Athletics forward.

Jude A. Killy

The
finalists’ visits are scheduled as follows: Walker, March 8-9; Lochmueller,
March 12-13; Killy, March 16-17; and Ramsey, March 18-19. In each case, the open
forums are scheduled for the second day, from 10:30 to 11:30 a.m. in the
Business and Technology Center Auditorium (Room 049).

Given
the positive trajectory of EKU Athletics, we were blessed with an incredibly
strong applicant pool of more than 60 candidates who formally sought the
position. The search committee, ably headed by Nick Perlick, Vice President for
Development and Alumni Relations, did a superb job of winnowing down from this
group a very solid slate of finalists, and we are excited to welcome them to
campus and introduce them to the Colonel family.

Killy
has been at Miami University since 2008 and was named to his current position
in 2012.

Stephen Lochmueller

Previously, he served from 2002 to 2007 at the University of
Pittsburgh, where he was Director of Athletic Development Operations and
Director of the Annual Fund-Panther Club. In all, he has almost 20 years of
experience in the areas of athletics administration and sports information.
Killy earned a bachelor’s degree in communications from John Carroll University
in 1995 and a master’s degree in sports administration and facility management
from Ohio University in 1998.

Lochmueller
has held a variety of executive positions, mostly in the communications field,
since 1989. Since April 2014, he has been President of Direct Attention Inc., a
company he has owned many years. Previously, he was Chief Operating Officer,
President and Chief Executive Officer of Lightyear Network Solutions. Among
other positions, he has served as Regional Vice President for Leap Wireless,
Area General Manager for Nextel Partners, Vice President and General Manager
for Horizon Cellular, and CEO and Owner of Somerset Houseboats. He earned a
bachelor’s degree in general studies in 1975 from the University of Kentucky,
where he also played for the UK basketball team.

Derrick Ramsey

Ramsey
has served as Director of Athletics at Coppin State University in Baltimore
since 2008. His previous positions include Deputy Secretary of Kentucky’s
Commerce Cabinet (2003-07), Athletics Director at Kentucky State University
(1999-2003), and Director of Development and Community Relations at the
University of Kentucky (1996-99). Ramsey earned a bachelor’s degree in general
studies from the University of Kentucky, where he played quarterback on the UK
football team before going on to a nine-year career in the National Football
League, and a master’s degree in sports administration from EKU. He won a NFL
Super Bowl title with the Oakland Raiders in 1981.

Christopher Walker

Walker
has served as Associate Athletics Director for Development at Washington State
University since 2008. Previous positions include: Associate Athletics Director
for External Relations at the University of North Carolina Wilmington
(2006-08), and Associate Athletics Director for Communications and Broadcasting
and then for Development at Southern Methodist University (2000-06). In all,
Walker has 20 years of experience in the areas of athletics administration and
sports information. He earned a bachelor’s degree in communication from Florida
State University in 1992.

EKU’s
new Director of Athletics will succeed Mark Sandy, who resigned earlier this
year to take a similar position at Ball State University.

I
encourage all those interested in meeting the candidates and hearing their
perspectives on collegiate athletics generally and EKU sports specifically to
attend the open forums. This is a very important hire for the University
as we continue to grapple with the ever-changing athletic landscape across the
country.

Despite some heated discussion among Jefferson County Board
of Education members, Superintendent Donna Hargens has been granted a
four-year contract extension to lead the state's largest school
district.

Hargens, who came to Jefferson County Public
Schools in 2011 and makes $276,000, will get a new term running from
July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2019, with her current contract expiring June
30 of this year.

The terms of the contract are largely
the same as her current contract, with Hargens keeping her salary.
Hargens proposed deleting a clause that gives her the same percentage
raise each year that teachers are given, although the new contract has a
clause allowing the board to give her a raise or a one-time lump sum
payment after her annual evaluation.

Board member Linda
Duncan argued against giving Hargens another four years, saying that a
two-year contract would be better as the board still looks for evidence
that changes Hargens is making are working. She said she'd like to see
more evidence that Hargens has improved communication and collaboration
and district morale, among other things.

"If you just grant a four-year contract, to me, it's like saying those concerns don't exist," she said.

Duncan
and others also brought up the idea of tabling the vote until the next
board meeting on March 9 to give community members, district employees
and other stakeholders time for input.

But board member
Chuck Haddaway called Duncan's reasoning of needing community input
"offensive to me" during the work session, saying that community input
should have been collected by board members over the months and years.
"Let's get it done and not drag it through," he said, questioning what
board members were doing with their time "if you have not heard what the
community says on the campaign trail (and) in your years of service."

Haddaway
agreed that dealing with the superintendent contract is one of the
board's biggest responsibilities, but said "we have momentum. We have a
leader that is doing well."

Board chairman David Jones
Jr. also pushed against tabling the vote, saying that consulting with
the community "seems to me to be a bit of a dodge. ... We've got other
stuff to do. We've got work to do."

Brent McKim,
president of the Jefferson County Teachers Association, said last week
that the JCTA board has not taken a position on Hargens' contract
renewal, but said the teachers union hoped the school board "would allow
ample time for community stakeholders and citizens to provide input"
before deciding on the new contract. He sent an email to board members
on Saturday to that effect.

A
vote to table the approval of the contract failed 3-4, with Lisa
Willner deciding at the last second to vote against tabling and with
Duncan, Chris Brady and Steph Horne in favor.

The board then voted 6-1 to give the contract extension during Monday evening's meeting, with Duncan as the lone dissent.

Hargens
thanked the board for the support, noting that she has "the best job in
Louisville." She later added that "I take all feedback very seriously.
... No one needs to feel I won't work to improve every day."

The
board also voted Monday to hold its March 30 board meeting at Moore
Traditional High. This will be the third of three traveling board
meetings that Jones had recommended when he took over as chairman;
Monday's board meeting was held at Central High. After the meeting at
Moore, the board will evaluate to see if continuing to host some
meetings at schools is a good idea.

The Jefferson County Board of Education is being asked by its teachers
union to hold off extending the contract of Superintendent Donna Hargens
to allow time for "stakeholder involvement."

In an email to
the JCPS board Saturday, JCTA President Brent McKim said the association
believes that "members of the elected school board have a
responsibility to actively seek feedback from stakeholders and employee
groups."

In order to operate democratically, McKim writes, more
time should be devoted for such an "important decision as the employment
of the superintendent."

School board members are expected to discuss a proposed 4-year extension for Hargens in a meeting Monday at 5:30 p.m. at Central High School.

JCPS
spokeswoman told WDRB News Friday that the school board can "vote on or
table any item on the agenda, including the superintendent's contract."

The public will be allowed to address the board concerning the proposed contract.

However,
at least one school board member has told WDRB News that she is "not
comfortable" voting on a four-year contract extension for Hargens.

"It
was suddenly laid out there and we were told there is a deadline we
have to meet," Linda Duncan said. "I'm not comfortable voting on a
four-year contract extension when we still have concerns that we said we
wanted to be addressed."

Duncan is referring to Hargens' last evaluation, which was done in June 2014.

"Collaboration
and communication is still a problem," Duncan said. "In addition,
morale across the district is not in a good place right now."

Hargens, who has been superintendent since August 2011, told WDRB News in January that she hopes to remain in Louisville.

"I
love Louisville," she said. "I love what we are doing in Jefferson
County, and I love the progress we are making. This is a wonderful
district where we are intentionally devoted and relentless about making
sure we provide a quality education for every student."

McKim
added that the district should err on the side of transparency, allowing
sufficient time for community input for a decision that affects so many
people.

Without providing much notice, the Senate Education Committee on
Monday night revisited a bill that would require transgender students to
use the bathroom that matches their biological sex or to seek special
accommodations, such as a unisex bathroom.

The bill failed to get
out of committee Thursday because it did not have the necessary seven
votes to be sent to the full Senate.

But the panel approved Senate
Bill 76 on an 8-1 vote on Monday night, minutes after Senate President
Robert Stivers, R-Manchester, told reporters he didn't know whether the
bill was on the committee's agenda.

Since Friday, the committee
had posted its agenda for Monday as "pending." Usually, a committee will
list the bills it is going to consider on its agenda so the public will
know what it is doing.

The Republican-led Senate is expected to approve SB 76 and send it to the Democratic-controlled House.

Chris
Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign

House
Speaker Greg Stumbo, D-Prestonsburg, said Monday night that the House
"would look at it" but that he had not thought much about it.

Chris
Hartman, director of the Fairness Campaign, said the Senate was
"prioritizing discrimination." He called the panel's actions "ludicrous,
willful, and mean-spirited" and contended the bill violated federal
laws governing equal treatment of male and female students.

He
said he did not know the committee would revisit the bill, which is
backed by The Family Foundation of Kentucky, until "about 30 seconds
before they did it. No agenda of bills was ever posted for public
consideration."

Hartman noted that two members were absent from
Thursday's committee meeting and three members were not present Monday,
including Democrat Gerald Neal and Republican Julie Raque Adams, both of
Louisville. They voted against the bill on Thursday.

Senate
Education Committee chairman Mike Wilson, R-Bowling Green, said he
listed the committee's agenda as pending "because we had several House
bills that were up in the air. We really didn't know what all would be
considered."

Told that Stivers said he didn't even know whether
the committee would take up SB 76 on Monday night, Wilson said, "Well,
that's just one of those things. But this was not a rush job. We heard
from opponents of the bill last week, and some members wanted to hear
from other students."

Testifying against the bill Monday were
David Kelty and his daughter Christina Kelty, a sophomore at Louisville
Atherton High School.

They said some students did not feel comfortable going to the bathroom with a transgender student.

"You are putting the rights of transgender students above the rights of other students" said Christina Kelty.

That
prompted Sen. Reginald Thomas, D-Lexington, to say that at one time in
America's history, some parents did not want their children in the
bathroom with students of a different color.

"I don't think that's the same," David Kelty responded.

The
bill stems from a controversy last year at Atherton, where a
transgender student who was born male identified as a female and wanted
to use the girls' bathrooms and locker rooms.

A controversy arose,
and the school eventually adopted a policy of letting students use
bathrooms based on their gender identity. The decision was backed by the
school's site-based council and a Jefferson County Public Schools
appeals committee.

The sponsor of the bill, Sen. C.B. Embry Jr., R-Morgantown, said his measure allows all students to have their privacy.

Henry
Brousseau, a 16-year-old transgender student at Louisville Collegiate
School, and his mother, Dr. Karen Berg, testified at last week's
committee meeting but not at Monday's.

Brousseau told the
committee that he has identified himself as a male for three years but
has been forced to use girls' bathrooms at times.

Brousseau said Monday he was "extremely disappointed" by the committee's vote.

His
mother said they did not know the committee would revisit the bill
Monday. "We were just told they sometimes do things like this," Berg
said.

'Bathroom bill' is an unjust solution looking for a problem

The Senate Education Committee, unwilling to let a nasty
bill die a natural death, took swift action Monday afternoon to revive
legislation that recalls echoes of some of our society's worst moments.

With
no notice and little debate the committee passed out, 8-1, a bill to
require transgender students to use restrooms and locker rooms based on
their biological sex rather than their gender identity.
It was
heard in that committee Thursday but failed to get the seven votes
needed to advance to the whole Senate with two Republicans missing,
apparently due to bad weather.

You'd think that might have been a
sign some greater power wanted the Senate to take a pass on this most
recent, likely unconstitutional, attempt to legislate the citizenry into
what's deemed an acceptable mold.

Sadly, the message wasn't received.

Central
Kentucky voters can be proud that Sen. Reginald Thomas, D-Lexington,
cast the only "no" vote Monday. Thomas led the debate last week with
questions and comments that made it clear the bill, if it becomes law,
will stigmatize transgender students.

Although called the
Kentucky Student Privacy Act, the bill requires transgender students to
declare their difference by going to separate bathrooms, whether those
set aside for them, unisex bathrooms or the faculty bathroom or other
facilities.

Rather than protecting the students, Henry Brousseau, a
16-year-old who has identified as a male for three years, told the
committee harassment was more likely "when we are forced to use the
bathroom that doesn't match our gender identity."

Requiring
transgender students to use separate facilities — didn't we agree long
ago that separate is not equal? — Henry said was like "outing myself
every time I had to go in there."

Equally troubling is that this
is a solution in search of a problem, an effort to expand state
government's reach where there is no apparent need. No superintendent
came forward Thursday to speak in favor of the bill. Tom Aberli,
principal of Atherton High School in Louisville, which adopted a policy
to allow students to use the facilities of their gender identity, said
there was reason to believe that, if enacted, the bill would cause more
bullying rather than less.

Aberli argued that it was best to leave
policy-making to local administrators and site-based councils. At
Atherton the council held five meetings on the issue, conducted
extensive research and collected input from students and others through a
Web-based survey before adopting a policy "the overwhelming majority of
our school community" supports, he said.

To people who complained
the policy was similar to those adopted in many California schools,
Aberli said it was a civil rights issue, not a question of one state
versus another. "The value of human life is the same in Kentucky as it
is anywhere else in this nation."

Or, as Henry told the panel, "That's just how I want to be treated, like a normal kid."

KSN&C

KSN&C

KSN&C is intended to be a place for well-reasoned civil discourse...not to suggest that we don’t appreciate the witty retort or pithy observation. Have at it. But we do not invite the anonymous flaming too often found in social media these days. This is a destination for folks to state your name and speak your piece.

It is important to note that, while the Moderator serves as Faculty Regent for Eastern Kentucky University, all comments offered by the Moderator on KSN&C are his own opinions and do not necessarily represent the views of the Board of Regents, the university administration, faculty, or any members of the university community.

On KSN&C, all authors are responsible for their own comments. See full disclaimer at the bottom of the page.

Why This Blog?

So far as we know, we only get one lifetime. So, when I "retired" in 2004, after 31-years in public education I wanted to do something different. I wanted to teach, write and become a student again. I have since spent a decade in higher ed.

I have listened to so many commentaries over the years about what should be done to improve Kentucky's schools - written largely by folks who have never tried to manage a classroom, run a school, or close an achievement gap. I came to believe that I might have something to offer.

I moved, in 1985, from suburban northern Kentucky to what was then the state’s flagship district - Fayette County. I have had a unique set of experiences to accompany my journey through KERA’s implementation. I have seen children grow to graduate and lead successful lives. I have seen them go to jail and I have seen them die. I have been amazed by brilliant teachers, dismayed by impassive bureaucrats, disappointed by politicians and uplifted by some of Kentucky’s finest school children. When I am not complaining about it, I will attest that public school administration is critically important work.

Democracy is run by those who show up. In our system of government every citizen has a voice, but only if they choose to use it.

This blog is totally independent; not supported or sponsored by any institution or political organization. I will make every effort to fully cite (or link to) my sources. Please address any concerns to the author.

On the campaign trail...with my wife Rita

An action shot: The Principal...as a much younger man.

Faculty Senate Chair

Serving as Mace Bearer during the Inauguration of Michael T. Benson as EKU's 12th president.

Teaching

EDF 203 in EKU's one-room schoolhouse.

Professin'

Lecturing on the history of Berea College to Berea faculty and staff, 2014.

Faculty Regent

One in a long series of meetings. 2016

KSN&C StatCounter

Disclaimer:

By accessing this website (http://theprincipal.blogspot.com) Kentucky School News and Commentary (hereafter KSN&C), a web browser (hereafter user) consents that she or he is familiar with, understands and absolutely accepts the following weblog disclaimer:

The views expressed by the authors and contributors on this website do not necessarily reflect the views of Kentucky School News and Commentary, those who link to this website, the author’s employers, mothers, fathers, sisters, brothers, other ancestors, blood-relatives, progeny, this website’s web host, moderator, designer, or any other organization in any way connected with this website.

While I presently serve as Chair of the Eastern Kentucky University Faculty Senate (August 2014-May 2016), none of the Moderator's comments are official statements attributable to EKU, its Faculty Senate or any of the institution's entities.

In all cases, comments are the personal views of the author. No individual contributor, author or commenter is paid for their opinion or beholden to a particular point of view. All contributors write in the English language and cannot be held responsible for unfortunate translations that may occur in other languages. KSN&C is not responsible for human errors involving grammar and punctuation.

Comments on this website are the sole responsibility of the author. The author assumes full responsibility, liability, and blame for any libel or litigation that may result from something written in or as a direct result of something written in a comment. The accuracy, completeness, veracity, honesty, exactitude, factuality and politeness of comments are not guaranteed. The content on the blog is not intended to malign any religious, ethnic group, club, organization, company or individual. Readers are advised to employ a healthy dose of rationality. Furthermore, information is always in transition. Web links change, and content published today may be out-of-date next week.

Readers are advised that some images used on the site are not the property of KSN&C but are reduced in size and used under fair-use. The same is true of certain copyrighted material. Any concerns should be addressed to the moderator. Due to the episodic nature of the blog, errors, when pointed out, may not be immediately corrected.

All trademarks, service marks, copyrights, registered names, mottos, logos, insignias and marks used or cited by this website are the property of their respective owners and this website in no way accepts any responsibility for an infringement on any of the above.

Despite any claims to the contrary, nothing on this website should be construed as professional advice. The information provided on this website is of a general, wide-ranging nature and cannot substitute for the advice of a licensed legal professional, physician, psychiatrist or member of the clergy. A competent authority with specialized knowledge operating within the Kentucky Department of Education, local public school district, church school, independent private school, home school, or in the journalistic, law enforcement or legal community is the only one who can address or comment on the specific circumstances covered in the news and commented upon herein. For personal advice, please contact your mother, father, BFF, local bar association, local bar tender, law society, medical board, county hospital, pastor, teacher, phone book, online directory, local emergency number in your jurisdiction, or Google to find a or obtain a referral to a competent professional.

This website has no control over the information you access via outbound link(s) in the post text, sidebar, header, footer or comment sections. This website does not endorse linked websites and cannot guarantee the accuracy of any information found by following said links or the correctness of any analysis found therein and should not be held responsible for it or the consequences of a user’s use of that information. In fact, we’re pretty sure we link to falsehoods perpetrated by others with some frequency. Be warned. Twistifications of supposed facts, biased reporting, and bad analysis is de rigueur for some of the sites we link.

This website may inadvertently link to content that is vacuous, obscene, venomous, frivolous, rotten, antagonistic, harsh, rancorous, acrimonious or repetitive. This website in no way condones, endorses or takes responsibility for such content. Please report anything really ugly to KSN&C’s Moderator.

This website publishes content regularly and said content is maintained in reference to the protections afforded it under local, state, martial, federal, international and school yard law. Publication of information found on this website may be in violation of the laws of the city, county, state, country or other jurisdiction from where you are viewing this website’s content and laws in your jurisdiction may not protect or allow the same kinds of speech or distribution. In the case that the laws of the jurisdiction where this website's content is maintained and those of yours conflict, this website does not encourage, condone, facilitate, recommend or protect the violation of any laws and cannot be responsible for any violations of such laws. We do condone lawful efforts to extend free speech protections to all parts of the world.

Because the World Wide Web is an integrated net of communication, discussion and litigation, this website encourages the distribution of its content. Cross, reciprocal or just plain friendly hyper-linking is consistent with this information sharing and this disclaimer should not be construed as a condemnation of any linking practices. That said, any reproduction of this website’s content must credit the website by name and Uniform Resource Locator (URL). Should you link to this domain or use, reproduce, republish, reiterate, imitate, or duplicate the information contained on this website, you alone are responsible for that action and should, under threat of litigation, credit this website by name and URL. In addition, any user who learns of information from this site, but traces back to our attributed sources in an effort to forego proper mention of KSN&C should seek therapy.

This website is not recommended for inmates, ingrates, illiterates, or anyone professing an irrational fear of CATS or any other mammal, or those who have a penchant for bullying or self- aggrandizement. Women who are pregnant or may become pregnant or are nursing are advised to consult their physician before reading this website. Eating before reading may result in indigestion. This website contains small pieces and is not recommended for children under the age of 4.